Real Science Radio: Oxford Prof: Central Darwinian Assumptions Disproved

[Jefferson]

Oxford Prof: Central Darwinian Assumptions Disproved

This is the show from Friday April 24th, 2015

Summary:



* Darwinism Disproved: A British biology professor, Oxford University's Dr. Denis Noble, wrote in the journal Experimental Physiology, "that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved." RSR's Bob Enyart and Fred Williams present entertaining and insightful nuggets of wisdom from the current edition of their favorite publication which you can subscribe to at creation.com/creation-magazine.

Today’s Resources: Have you browsed through our Science Department in the KGOV Store? See also, the superb kids' radio programming, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! And Bob strongly recommends that you subscribe to CMI’s tremendous Creation magazine!

* Unrelated BigCommerce Gripe: Sadly, Real Science Radio uses one of the world's leading eCommerce platforms, BigCommerce.

 

[User Name]

A British biology professor, Oxford University's Dr. Denis Noble, wrote

That link is broken.

 

[User Name]

You guys ought to include a transcript of the show, either here or on the kgov website, so people can quote and comment.

 

[The Barbarian]

Apparently, professor Denis doesn't know the five basic points of Darwinism. Just so we know, how about Jefferson tells us what they are, and which ones have been disproven?

 

[Lighthouse]

You guys ought to include a transcript of the show, either here or on the kgov website, so people can quote and comment.

Is it too hard to just listen to the show?

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm guessing no one is going to step up and tell us about Darwin's basic points, and how they've been refuted.

And I was really looking forward to seeing that.

 

[User Name]

I'm guessing no one is going to step up and tell us about Darwin's basic points, and how they've been refuted.

And I was really looking forward to seeing that.

Found this:

Darwin's main ideas can be summarized in six basic points. The first five are observations and the sixth point is his conclusion based on these observations.

1) A group of organisms tend to reproduce more offspring than the environment can support.

2) Most populations tend to remain fairly constant in size because of various population regulation mechanisms at work, e.g., density-dependent factors and density-independent factors regulating population size. The population comes into an equilibrium with its present environment.

3) Competition takes place because so many individuals are introduced into an environment with limited resources. There is a "struggle for existence." Such a competitive struggle for existence usually includes being better adapted for obtaining the available resources in comparison to other individuals. Especially note that physical combat is not a very important part of this concept.

4) There exists variation among individuals within any species because genetic changes occasionally occur that modify the DNA structure of chromosomes.

5) Variations caused by gene mutations are usually either harmful or useless. However, over the course of time, beneficial mutations may occur. Individuals that inherit beneficial mutations or beneficial gene recombinations are better adapted to survive. This is where the phrase "survival of the fittest" comes in or the process of natural selection. Again note that such a competitive struggle for existence usually includes being better adapted for obtaining the available resources in comparison to other individuals and that physical combat is not a very important part of this concept.

6) In a changing environment, those organisms with favorable genetic variations survive. The surviving organisms then reproduce and transmit their DNA to their offspring. Over a long period of time ENTIRELY NEW SPECIES EVOLVE. Organisms that have successful genetic variations not only live longer but produce more offspring who also inherit the favorable adaptation.

Note that the Theory of Natural Selection states that:

a) organisms that are better adapted (genetically) to their environment will survive in greater
numbers than those less well adapted, and
b) the genetic material, therefore, that controls those adaptations will become more numerous
in the population in the next generation.
c) The ability of the entire group to survive in then increased.

Natural selection is the preservation of favorable, beneficial characteristics in the population and the elimination of the unfavorable characteristics.​

Source: http://raywinstead.com/darwin.shtm

Though I'm not sure how it's been refuted.

 

[The Barbarian]

And we have a winner. If anyone thinks any of this has been refuted, I'd be pleased to hear the evidence for it.

 

[everready]

Genesis

Genesis

And we have a winner. If anyone thinks any of this has been refuted, I'd be pleased to hear the evidence for it.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


everready

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
And we have a winner. If anyone thinks any of this has been refuted, I'd be pleased to hear the evidence for it.

(random Bible verse offered)

Sorry, nothing in there that says anything about any of those points. Try again?

 

[Stripe]

There are so many problems with Darwin's ideas it's not funny.

5) Variations caused by gene mutations are usually either harmful or useless. However, over the course of time, beneficial mutations may occur.

And the rates at which mutations happen allows no time for evolution to happen, even with millions of years. When pushed to show examples of evolution, Darwinists will point to changes that arise in a few decades or faster — far too little time for evolution to be a factor.

Individuals that inherit beneficial mutations or beneficial gene recombinations are better adapted to survive. This is where the phrase "survival of the fittest" comes in or the process of natural selection.

Organisms that have successful genetic variations not only live longer but produce more offspring who also inherit the favorable adaptation.

The Theory of Natural Selection states that: a) organisms that are better adapted (genetically) to their environment will survive in greater numbers than those less well adapted.

These are all tautologies with of no useful application when it comes to describing the proposed advance of genetic information from bugs to people. A "beneficial" change is defined as one that allows a creature to produce more offspring, reducing "survival of the fittest" to "survival of those that survive."

The outworking of this tautology is that the evolutionist makes up anything in response to attempts to falsify his beliefs. If homosexuality is pervasive, they invent a story whereby homosexuality leads to increased fitness, never mind the fact that homosexuality by definition leads to no reproduction.

6) In a changing environment, those organisms with favorable genetic variations survive.

Which is easily shown false. When the environment changes, organisms adapt quickly (if at all), eliminating the possibility that evolution is involved. This notion can be tested. Take a culture and clone it a number of times. Expose a portion of the clones to a change in environment and watch as they all respond in a the same ways in the same timeframe.

The surviving organisms then reproduce and transmit their DNA to their offspring. Over a long period of time ENTIRELY NEW SPECIES EVOLVE.

"Species," another weasel word. "Species" has such a vague and malleable definition as to be next to useless in a serious scientific discussion. I once read evolutionists who said that birds singing a new song was potential speciation.

If evolutionists were to give the term a non-negotiable definition, it would be useful, but they would quickly find that such a move would highlight innumerable cases that show their ideas to be wrong, whether that be scientifically, politically or morally.

Natural selection is the preservation of favorable, beneficial characteristics in the population and the elimination of the unfavorable characteristics.

And this will never produce what evolutionists want it to create. Evolution is the idea that all living things are descended by means of random mutation and natural selection from a universal common ancestor. This requires an increase in genetic information. Picking the best examples out of inferior copies of a parent will always result in degradation of the genome.

And entropy dictates that copies will always be inferior to their parents.

Evolution is dead in the water. It's time to move on. :up:

 

[User Name]

These are all tautologies with of no useful application when it comes to describing the proposed advance of genetic information from bugs to people. A "beneficial" change is defined as one that allows a creature to produce more offspring, reducing "survival of the fittest" to "survival of those that survive."

[T]he expression does become a tautology if one uses the most widely accepted definition of "fitness" in modern biology, namely reproductive success itself (rather than any set of characters conducive to this reproductive success). This reasoning is sometimes used to claim that Darwin's entire theory of evolution by natural selection is fundamentally tautological, and therefore devoid of any explanatory power.

However, the expression "survival of the fittest" (taken on its own and out of context) gives a very incomplete account of the mechanism of natural selection. The reason is that it does not mention a key requirement for natural selection, namely the requirement of heritability. It is true that the phrase "survival of the fittest", in and by itself, is a tautology if fitness is defined by survival and reproduction. Natural selection is the portion of variation in reproductive success that is caused by heritable characters (see the article on natural selection).

If certain heritable characters increase or decrease the chances of survival and reproduction of their bearers, then it follows mechanically (by definition of "heritable") that those characters that improve survival and reproduction will increase in frequency over generations. This is precisely what is called "evolution by natural selection." On the other hand, if the characters which lead to differential reproductive success are not heritable, then no meaningful evolution will occur, "survival of the fittest" or not: if improvement in reproductive success is caused by traits that are not heritable, then there is no reason why these traits should increase in frequency over generations. In other words, natural selection does not simply state that "survivors survive" or "reproducers reproduce"; rather, it states that "survivors survive, reproduce and therefore propagate any heritable characters which have affected their survival and reproductive success". This statement is not tautological: it hinges on the testable hypothesis that such fitness-impacting heritable variations actually exist (a hypothesis that has been amply confirmed.)​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest#Is_.22survival_of_the_fittest.22_a_tautology.3F

 

[Stripe]

[T]he expression does become a tautology if one uses the most widely accepted definition of "fitness" in modern biology, namely reproductive success itself (rather than any set of characters conducive to this reproductive success). This reasoning is sometimes used to claim that Darwin's entire theory of evolution by natural selection is fundamentally tautological, and therefore devoid of any explanatory power.

However, the expression "survival of the fittest" (taken on its own and out of context) gives a very incomplete account of the mechanism of natural selection. The reason is that it does not mention a key requirement for natural selection, namely the requirement of heritability. It is true that the phrase "survival of the fittest", in and by itself, is a tautology if fitness is defined by survival and reproduction. Natural selection is the portion of variation in reproductive success that is caused by heritable characters (see the article on natural selection).

If certain heritable characters increase or decrease the chances of survival and reproduction of their bearers, then it follows mechanically (by definition of "heritable") that those characters that improve survival and reproduction will increase in frequency over generations. This is precisely what is called "evolution by natural selection." On the other hand, if the characters which lead to differential reproductive success are not heritable, then no meaningful evolution will occur, "survival of the fittest" or not: if improvement in reproductive success is caused by traits that are not heritable, then there is no reason why these traits should increase in frequency over generations. In other words, natural selection does not simply state that "survivors survive" or "reproducers reproduce"; rather, it states that "survivors survive, reproduce and therefore propagate any heritable characters which have affected their survival and reproductive success". This statement is not tautological.

Fair enough. Though evolutionists should learn this and face the challenges issued instead of making up stories.

It hinges on the testable hypothesis that such fitness-impacting heritable variations actually exist (a hypothesis that has been amply confirmed.)

Which does nothing to contribute toward the scenario evolutionists are trying to promote; being more capable of reproduction is no step down a path toward changing a bug into a person.

 

[everready]

Barbarian observes:
And we have a winner. If anyone thinks any of this has been refuted, I'd be pleased to hear the evidence for it.

(random Bible verse offered)

Sorry, nothing in there that says anything about any of those points. Try again?

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean its not there.


everready

 

[The Barbarian]

The fact that you can't show it there, is sufficient demonstration that it is not what you want it to be.

Darwin's points are well documented, and his conclusions of speciation have been directly observed to happen. Nothing you threw up there denies any of it.

Scripture should not be used as a magic charm against reality.

 

[Stripe]

The fact that you can't show it there, is sufficient demonstration that it is not what you want it to be.Darwin's points are well documented, and his conclusions of speciation have been directly observed to happen. Nothing you threw up there denies any of it. Scripture should not be used as a magic charm against reality.

Sorry. The Bible says "six days." Your assertion that it is compatible with evolutionism shows you have no interest in an honest discussion.

When you've picked a rational starting point, there is the opportunity for a sensible discussion. However, while you play the man-pleasing fence-sitter, all you encourage is nausea. :vomit:

 

[The Barbarian]

As you know the word was "yom"' which can mean almost any length of time. But the fact that a literal revision requires mornings and evenings with no sun, makes it clear that your new interpretation won't work.

When you're ready to accept it God's way instead of your man-made version, you'll find some peace with Him. Not until.

 

[Stripe]

As you know the word was "yom"' which can mean almost any length of time. But the fact that a literal revision requires mornings and evenings with no sun, makes it clear that your new interpretation won't work.When you're ready to accept it God's way instead of your man-made version, you'll find some peace with Him. Not until.

Nope. Try to address the challenges you are issued instead of making up weak ideas to dance around.

The Bible says "six days." It is entirely incompatible with your evolutionism. Pick a side instead of trying to please everyone except those who hold to God's word.

 

[lucaspa]

And we have a winner. If anyone thinks any of this has been refuted, I'd be pleased to hear the evidence for it.

Not quite a winner. What was listed is natural selection. The 5 theories comprising "evolution" are:

"1. The nonconstancy of species (the basic theory of evolution)
2. The descent of all organisms from common ancestors (branching evolution).
3.The gradualness of evolution (no saltations, no discontinuities)
4.The multiplication of species (the origin of diversity)
5. Natural selection." Ernst Mayr, What Evolution IS. pg 86

 

[Stripe]

Not quite a winner. What was listed is natural selection. The 5 theories comprising "evolution" are:

"1. The nonconstancy of species (the basic theory of evolution)
2. The descent of all organisms from common ancestors (branching evolution).
3.The gradualness of evolution (no saltations, no discontinuities)
4.The multiplication of species (the origin of diversity)
5. Natural selection." Ernst Mayr, What Evolution IS. pg 86

:darwinsm:

:mock: :blabla: Berryan